My comments are interspersed below. DR On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:26:39 PM UTC-6, rbe...@fernside.co.nz wrote: < Dear Mr Richardson < < Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de <St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316). It is easy to confuse two men of the same name, John de Saint John, of Basing, and John de Saint John, of Lagham. Both appear to have been in Scotland in this time period. < John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at < a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), < captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The < latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not < summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299. C.P. 4 (1916): 324; 11 (1949): 324 (sub Saint John) states that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was captured by the French in 1296 or 1297, and that he returned to England in 1297. He is stated in more than one source to have fought at the Battle of Falkirk in Scotland in 1298. You state without source that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, was not released by the French until 1299. That statement disagrees with every reliable source that I've checked. < In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de <Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, <requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in <Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred <to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. The letter by Sir John de Saint John was written in August 1298 (not 1297 as you say), from a place called Langham. For a full transcript of this letter, see Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland, 2 (1870): 305–306. Gough, Scotland in 1298 (1888): xliii also dates the letter as being in 1298 and further identifies Langham as being Langholm in Dumfriesshire, Scotland, NOT Lageham, Surrey. This same date (1298) and the same identification of this locality is also provided in a well researched biography of Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, in Howard de Walden, Some Feudal Lords & Their Seals (1903): 52–53 (biog. of John de St. John). Just why you would change the date of the letter (1298) and the locality from Scotland to England is beyond me. Maybe you can explain your motives? < John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common <descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from <Richard de Lucy, the justiciar. Yes, it is true that the other Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, probably had a Despenser mother [Complete Peerage suggests this possibility]. If so, this would make him near kin to Sir John de Segrave, as you state. However, as I set out the evidence in my earlier post, I showed that Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, would also be related to Sir John de Segrave, by their common descent from the Cantelowe family. This cross-cross of kinships between baronial families is quite common in this time period. As far as which John de Saint John wrote the 1298 letter, both Gough, pg. 326, and Walden appear to think that it was Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. They could be wrong, but I doubt it. Is there any other evidence to tell us the identity of the author of the 1298 letter? Yes, I believe there is. In the 1298 letter, John de Saint John names not one, but two kinsmen, namely Sir John de Segrave and Sir Richard Siward, of Tibbers in Dumfriesshire, Scotland. There is a full biography of Sir Richard Siward published in Rogers, Book of Wallace 2 (1889): 320-323. Wallace says the following: Sir Richard Siward was "son or grandson of Richard Siward, of the reign of Henry, possessed lands in Hampshire, at Northamptonshire, and in Tyndedale. He also held lands in the south of Scotland." END OF QUOTE. Inasmuch as Sir Richard Siward's family held lands in Hampshire, this fact would tend to point that he was near related to Sir John de Saint John, of Basing, Hampshire, rather than Sir John de Saint John, of Lageham, Surrey. On the basis of the information cited above, I would identify the author of the 1298 letter as Sir John de Saint John, of Basing. His near kinship to Sir John de Segrave by the way of their common Cantelowe ancestry is near certain. In any event, the letter by John de Saint John was not written in 1297 in Surrey as you claim, but in Scotland in 1298. > Cheers > Rosie Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

Dear Rosie, I very much appreciate this information. My records indicate that Odo Dammartin received a moiety of the manor of Lagham (in Walkhamsted, Surrey) in marriage with the daughter of Reginald de Lucy and sister of Richard de Lucy. This Richard then split the manor between Dammartin and the St. Johns. While this property lies next to Burstowe, Horley and Horne and records imply that an Edward St. John of Lagham was the father of Elizabeth who married Thomas Slyfield, I am beginning to be convinced that Elizabeth was the daughter of Edward St. John by Alice in the Petworth St. John line. The St. Johns of Lagham clearly are involved with the families in this area, on the death of John St. John in 1349, Katherine Sai, his wife, and his son Roger sold their Surrey properties to Nicholas Louvaine, as did my Richard de Burstowe. John and Katherine had several children including William and Nicholas. The mother of this John St. John was Margery Gyse who married secondly, Sir John de Ifield. Pat On May 30, 2016, at 5:26 PM, rbevan via wrote: > Dear Mr Richardson > > Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316). > > John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299. > > In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. > > John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from Richard de Lucy, the justiciar > > For further details see Rosie Bevan & Peter G M Dale, ‘Reginald de Lucy, son of Richard de Lucy, King’s Justiciar: New Perspectives.’ Foundations (2016) 8: 53-72. > > Abstract > In the authors’ previous article on Richard de Lucy, chief Justiciar of Henry II, and his newly discovered daughter, Rose, it was stated that we were left with the implication that there may be other unrecognised children - in particular, Reginald de Lucy, who seemed to be clearly related to Richard. A recent find from manuscripts in the British Library has indeed confirmed Reginald as brother of Geoffrey de Lucy and thus son of Richard de Lucy. This article examines the evidence and discusses the implications for the wider family network, including that of Reginald’s little known daughter, Cecily, who the authors suggest was wife of Walter de Cherlecote, (progenitor of the Lucys of Charlecote), Roger de St John and Richard Mallore. > > Cheers > Rosie > > > > On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:40:30 AM UTC+12, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > >> Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink: >> >> http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1 >> > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 9:47:26 AM UTC-3, Peter Stewart via wrote: > On 30/05/2016 10:24 PM, John Watson via wrote: > > On Monday, 30 May 2016 06:18:33 UTC+1, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > >> On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:21:33 PM UTC-3, taf wrote: > >>> On Saturday, May 28, 2016 at 9:57:24 PM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > >>> > >>>> Cawley mentions, inter alia, "Pope Innocent IV permitted “nobili mulieri > >>>> --- Sorori...Regis Scotie” to enter Doberan monastery, founded by “nobilis > >>>> vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus”, to pray, dated 20 May 1248" (Source for > >>>> this: Theiner, A. (1864) Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historia > >>>> Illustrantia (Rome), CXXXV, p. 50.) > >>> The text of this source reads: > >>> > >>> INNOCENTIUS EPISCOPUS etc. Dilecte filie Nobili mulieri ... Sorori Carissimi in Christo filii nostri ... Illustris Regis Scotie, salutem etc. Pium arbitramur et congruum, ut in hiis prompti simus ad gratiam, que profectum respiciunt animarum, presertim circa personas nobiles, que pura fide conspicue deo et ecclesie sunt devote. Hinc est, quod nos tue nobilitatis precibus annuentes, ut cum sex matronis honestis monasterium de Doberan Cisterciensis ordinis Zverinensis diocesis, cuius Nobilis vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit, bis vel ter in anno causa devotionis intrare valeas, eiusdem ordinis statuto contrario non obstante, tibi auctoritate presentium conferimus facultatem. Datum Lugduni XIII. Kal. Iunii, Pontificatus nostri anno quinto. > >>> > >>> https://books.google.com/books?id=ADxQAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA50 > >>> > >>> taf > >> Many thanks for the info, Todd. > >> > >> What do or can make out of this document? Any insights? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> JL > > Firstly, the name of the sister of the king of the Scots (Alexander II) is not given. Secondly we are told that her husband, B. de Rostock founded the Cistercian monastery of Doberan. Since the monastery was founded in or about 1186, she is more likely to have been the second wife of Borwin (or Burwin) I of Rostock, than his son Borwin II. The second wife of Borwin I was called Adelaide, and she had an only daughter Elisabeth (d. 1265), abbess of Wienhausen Abbey from 1241. > > > > This is stretching the sense of the text rather a long way - "nobilis > vir B. de Rozstoc maritus tuus fundator existit" was written in 1248: > "maritus" (husband) without "quondam" (formerly), that is liberally used > in papal documents for deceased persons, along with "fundator existit" > (is a founder, NB in the present tense) strongly imply that B. of > Rostock was still living at the time. He was apparently enjoying > inherited founder's rights in Doberan abbey rather than necessarily > being its initial founder (monastic foundation pancartes that were often > presented for papal confirmation could extend the process over several > generations). The lord of Rostock in 1248 was Heinrich Borwin III, as > Hofmeister noted. > > Peter Stewart Thank you all. Then I must conclude that this marriage, if it happened at all, left no issue. Is that right? Thanks again. JL

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:27:27 PM UTC-6, John Higgins wrote: > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 1:21:06 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > I work at FamilySearch. I can confirm the Medieval Unit has been phased out. I don't know the reason. You never know, it might be reincarnated again in the future. > > > > The databases they created are now under the "Genealogy" section in the "Search" tab on familysearch.org. The user experience with the databases is sub par. > > > > Nathan > > > > "The user experience with the databases is sub par" - ??? > > What's the basis for this remark? And, if it's accurate, what is Family Search doing about it? Family Search (as it now calls itself) doesn't have a very good track with databases such as these (e.g., Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File). Stewart's correct, the program is now defunct. One benefit is that the databases they created are now searchable through the main FamilySearch.org website (as opposed to the histfam.familysearch.org site); however, if the Medieval Families Unit were ever to be revived, my wish list for the databases they created would include improved navigation, better display of cited sources, and larger number of generations visible in pedigree view. Nathan

> CONCLUSION: DNA is worthless as a professional genealogical research tool. Ditto to TAF's post. You've completely misinterpreted Mrs. Mills' article. The professional genealogical community I participate in is currently worried that conclusions about genealogical relationships they reached in the twentienth century using historical documents will be overturned by new DNA evidence made available in the twenty-first century. Nathan

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 4:34:38 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > thus DNA proof is mecurial, and being of human origins, also subject to > unknown moral value systems, Sorry, no. There is no moral value system involved. Just G, A, T & C: SNPs, STRs and INDELs. > Example: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings; re: "We describe the conflict > between population genetics and individual-based genetics and the pitfalls > of over-simplistic genetic interpretations, arguing that although the > tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and > strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces. And this is supposed to be an example of what? Well, another case of deceptive source usage on your part? The quote comes from the abstract of the same paper you cited yesterday without reading, and you STILL haven't read this paper, have you? It is entirely inappropriate to argue that a paper supports your position without first reading it. Likewise, the paper never mentions Jefferson or Hemings, and to pretend otherwise as you do here is likewise an breach of ethical scholarship. Read the paper and quit pretending it supports your position - it doesn't, and the closest it gets to Thomas Jefferson is Jesse James. > CONCLUSION: DNA is worthless as a professional genealogical research tool. This is as well founded as when the tobacco industry claimed cigarettes didn't cause cancer - they decided the conclusion first and then used the most tenuous and unsubstantiated reasoning to justify that foregone conclusion. You don't like DNA so you have dragged this group through a convoluted set of red herrings, straw man arguments, misunderstandings and dishonest deceptions simply to pretend to justify your preconception. The conclusion that DNA analysis is worthless is patently ridiculous and completely unsupported by anything you have presented. taf

From memory the first posting I made to this newsgroup, in the 1990s, was in response to someone who had asserted that the famous admiral Roger of Lauria's daughter married to Enrico of Sanseverino, constable of Sicily, was named Maria and not Ilaria (they are ancestors of anyone descended from Jacquetta of Luxemburg-St Pol, amongst many others). I didn't find a contemporary source to disprove this error, but cited the great 16th-century historian Jeronimo Zurita as a more reliable authority than the source for "Maria". Today I came across two letters from Pope John XXII that show Zurita was right to name her Ilaria - the first is to the minister-general of the Franciscans dated 5 November 1319 ordering that she be allowed to construct a friary, referring to her as Ilaria di Lauria, widow of Enrico, son of the count of Sanseverino ("Ilaria de Lauria, vidua Henrici, nati comitis de s. Severino"); the second, dated 5 November 1329, is an indulgence of 100 days granted to those who on the feast day of St John the Baptist visited the church she was building in his honour for the friary at Cuccaro ("ecclesiam in honorem et sub vocabulo s[ancti] Joannis Baptistae dedicatam in quodam loco quem ad opus fratrum O[rdinis] M[inorum] n[obilis] m[ulier] Ilaria de Lauria, relicta quond[am] Henrici primogeniti quond[am] Thomasii de Sancto Severino, comitis Marsici, militis, vidua, in castro suo de Cuccaro ... aedificare incepit"). Peter Stewart

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:42:32 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > a couple of 19th century scholars read this as Vitta filius Victa, the > Witta Wecting of Hengest's pedigree (according to Bede and ASC - the > order is different in the Anglian Collection, apparently followed by > Snorri, and differently different in AEthelweard's Chronicle). I might as well lay this out. These pedigrees have been analyzed backwards and forwards for almost two centuries. Grimm addressed this specific sequence of names in the context of determining whether Wecta and Waegdaeg were intended to represent the same son of Woden. Bede (and ASC) gives: Woden, Wecta, Witta, Wihtgils, Hengest Other Bede mss give: Woden, Wecta, Wihtgils, Hengest In the script of the time, the 'c' in Wicta and the 't's in Witta may have looked quite similar, perhaps leading to accidentally skipping from one to the other when transcribing, leading to the missing name. The existence of versions with Wihtgils as son of Wecta may have led to the rearrangement that Grimm calls attention to in Snoori's Prose Edda, where Wihtgils and Witta are reversed. Snorri shows it as: Odin, Vegdeg, Vitrgils, Pitta, Hengest Grimm just used this to show that by the time of Snorri either Waegdaeg (of the Diera pedigree) was considered to be the same as Wecta of the Kent pedigree, or that Snorri conflated them (Pitta is Witta, misreading a thorn for a 'p'). Grimm did not have access to the Anglian Collection, or he would have known Snorri's version was not his own: Anglian Collection shows: Woden, Waegdaeg, Wihtgils, Witta, Hengest Even though it is not explicitly stated to have been the case, the use of the form Waegdaeg in both Kent and Deira pedigrees by the A C shows that very early they considered Bede's Wicta to be the same as Waegdaeg. This led Douglas to conclude that Kent had spliced their royalty onto a Deira pedigree to show a political alliance. AEtheweard is different: Wothen, Wither, Wicta, Wihtgils, Hengest Like the Chronicle but exchanging the order of Witta (Wither) and Wecta (or perhaps just so botched in representing the names in Latin that it just appears to be the case). It is also noteworthy that while some of the sources differ in the fine details, there is a notable difference in the associated Deira pedigree. ASC: Woden, Waegdaeg, Sigegar A C: Woden, Waegdaeg, Siggar Snorri:Odin, Vegdeg, Vitrgils, Sigarr H B: Woden, Beldeg, Brond, Siggar Snorri has moved the Kent/Deira split one generation farther down the Kent pedigree, but Historia Brittonum has gone and replaced it entirely. Usually this is said to be the Wessex root, and it is: A C: Woden, Baeldaeg, Brand, Giwis (the eponymous West Saxon) But I think it more noteworthy that is matches the ASC version of the Bernicia root: ASC: Woden, Baeldaeg, Brand, Benoc (i.e. Beornic, eponymous Bernician) Sisam made a strong argument that the Wessex line was coopted from Bernicia, but I would argue further that what Historia Brittonum has done is reflect the union of Bernicia and Deira into Northumbria by transferring the Deira tree onto the Bernicia root. If so, then if one follows Douglas, HB is giving Kent what was once the Deira ancestral line, while removing it from Deira and replacing it with that of Bernicia. taf

On 30/05/2016 2:42 PM, taf via wrote: > I have been looking at some of the early Anglo-Saxon genealogical traditions and came across some references from the 19th century to the Cat Stane. The Cat Stane is an inscribed memorial that dates from the late 5th or early 6th century, and is located on the grounds of the Edinburgh Airport. The text is fragmentary: > > IN OC T(damaged) > MVLO IAC( )T > VITTA F(damaged) > VICT#(damaged) > > [# = a character read variously as A, R or I] > > The current preferred reconstruction of this is that it should be read as > > In oc t[v]mvlo iac[i]t Vitta f[ilia] Vict[ricus] > In this tomb lies Vitta, daughter of Victricus > > At least one author, based on this inscription, has made a special point of the fact that the two names on the stone are both Roman names, yet the second name is only Roman because someone decided to fill in the blank that way, while the first name, Vitta, is only Roman (or female) if you want it to be - a couple of 19th century scholars read this as Vitta filius Victa, the Witta Wecting of Hengest's pedigree (according to Bede and ASC - the order is different in the Anglian Collection, apparently followed by Snorri, and differently different in AEthelweard's Chronicle). > > Is anyone aware of this artifact familiar with the basis for completing it as in the modern reconstruction (daughter of Victricus)? > I don't know the answer, perhaps it's no more than an old guess that has yet to be improved on - in any case the rationale is perhaps discussed in one of the two 20th-century references cited here https://canmore.org.uk/event/552011. The reconstruction presumably should read: "In [h]oc tumulo iacet Vitta filia Victricii" - "iacit" is from the infinitive "iacire", to throw (not from "iacere", to lie), and the father's name ought to be genitive. Peter Stewart

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 3:14:11 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > > Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This > > Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? > > > > In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested "New Technology Makes Family History Easier, Even Fun", noting "An interesting development in family history research is the use of DNA testing to discover one’s ethnicity." > > https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-technology-makes-family-history-easier-even-fun?lang=eng > > Some of the logical flaws I see in this post are: > 1) FamilySearch promotes only genealogically-perfect products > 2) An article in FamilySearch Wiki is tantamount to support from the LDS Church > > If FamilySearch promoted only genealogically-perfect products, we would have to take down FamilyTree, Indexing, the IGI, Wiki, etc. There are flaws in all these products. FamilySearch does not sell a DNA kit, but I for one, as an employee (and not speaking for the company), see great value in ethnicity tests attracting newbies to explore their roots and starting them on the path to becoming more serious genealogists. It's a gateway product, like false royal family trees, to entering the genealogy world. > > >Is this a serious public relations mistake, for an organization, noted for being the source of all truth, to promote hope in fictional data sets? Today, this is now updated in FamilySearch, the genealogy arm of the LDS Church, in subset "Hiring a DNA Testing Company", listed under Hiring a Professional Researcher. > https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Hiring_a_DNA_Testing_Company > > Myself and Dr. Ugo Perego are some of the principal authors of this Wiki article. You'll note it is a Wiki and if you'd like to make edits to the factual accuracy of the article, you are welcome to do so. > > If you look closely at the bottom of this page, you'll notice a disclosure: > "Neither The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor FamilySearch is associated in any way with any DNA studies. As a non-profit organization, FamilySearch cannot recommend a specific DNA-testing company to you." > > Most professional genealogists in my circles use DNA tests to confirm and find new relatives, rather than for ethnicity purposes. A good article to see this in practice is: > *Mills, Elizabeth Shown. "Testing the FAN principle against DNA: Zilphy (Watts) Price Cooksey Cooksey of Georgia and Mississippi," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 102 (2014):129-52, available in full on the author's website: http://www.historicpathways.com/download/ZilphyArticle072915.pdf > > Best, > > Nathan > > P.S. And lastly, my satirical predictions of the future importance of DNA testing to genealogy: https://web.archive.org/web/20140306221040/https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-history-2050-dnas-impact/ -------------------------------------------------- REPLY: MILLS suggests Associational Data: "Identity and kinship conclusions should always rest on a wide range of factors. Naming, migration, cultural patterns, and associations are critical to building a case for each person’s identity and placement in a specific family." Therefore, contrary to marketing expectations, over time, increasing DNA sample bases will make more complex, not refine, the ability to genealogically validate each person's identity, as the statistical downward disparity in the volume of all the other unrecorded supporting factors becomes globally minimalized; re: your satirical predictions, or we all become a number like 666; are no longer treated as human. http://www.historicpathways.com/download/ZilphyArticle072915.pdf There appears to be an adjustment in statistical probabilities for DNA based relationships, with any given individual, to any given or proposted pedigree that they might be associated with, depending upon placement from one's direct line or cousin sources, as father, son, brother, uncle, nephew, etc.; this implies that there are no concrete standards that can be established over time to specify real individual identities; thus DNA proof is mecurial, and being of human origins, also subject to unknown moral value systems, which further complicates validating assumptions, subjective by each new living generation. Example: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings; re: "We describe the conflict between population genetics and individual-based genetics and the pitfalls of over-simplistic genetic interpretations, arguing that although the tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces." CONCLUSION: DNA is worthless as a professional genealogical research tool.

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 11:48:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart via wrote: > > The reconstruction presumably should read: "In [h]oc tumulo iacet Vitta > filia Victricii" - "iacit" is from the infinitive "iacire", to throw > (not from "iacere", to lie), and the father's name ought to be genitive. Serves me right for uncritically copying the 'corrected' text without really looking at it. Thanks. Todd

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 1:21:06 PM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > I work at FamilySearch. I can confirm the Medieval Unit has been phased out. I don't know the reason. You never know, it might be reincarnated again in the future. > > The databases they created are now under the "Genealogy" section in the "Search" tab on familysearch.org. The user experience with the databases is sub par. > > Nathan > "The user experience with the databases is sub par" - ??? What's the basis for this remark? And, if it's accurate, what is Family Search doing about it? Family Search (as it now calls itself) doesn't have a very good track with databases such as these (e.g., Ancestral File, Pedigree Resource File).

Dear Mr Richardson Unfortunately you have a case of mistaken identity here and confused John de St John of Basing (d.1302) for John de St John of Lagham (d.1316). John de St John of Lagham was summoned to serve against the Scots in 1296 at a time when John de St John of Basing was Seneschal of Gascony (1295-97), captured by the French at Bellegarde in 1297 and not released until 1299. The latter’s son of the same name was serving in Flanders in 1297 and not summoned to serve against the Scots until 1299. In 1297 John de St John of Lagham wrote a letter from “Langham” to Ralph de Manton, a senior official of the King and paymaster of the English troops, requesting that he act on his behalf on the king’s business at a meeting in Roxburgh in the Scottish Borders because he was ill. In the letter he referred to John de Segrave as his cousin, “monsieur Johan de Segrave notre cosin”. John de St John of Lagham was second cousin of John de Segrave by common descent from the Despenser family. They also shared a common descent from Richard de Lucy, the justiciar For further details see Rosie Bevan & Peter G M Dale, ‘Reginald de Lucy, son of Richard de Lucy, King’s Justiciar: New Perspectives.’ Foundations (2016) 8: 53-72. Abstract In the authors’ previous article on Richard de Lucy, chief Justiciar of Henry II, and his newly discovered daughter, Rose, it was stated that we were left with the implication that there may be other unrecognised children - in particular, Reginald de Lucy, who seemed to be clearly related to Richard. A recent find from manuscripts in the British Library has indeed confirmed Reginald as brother of Geoffrey de Lucy and thus son of Richard de Lucy. This article examines the evidence and discusses the implications for the wider family network, including that of Reginald’s little known daughter, Cecily, who the authors suggest was wife of Walter de Cherlecote, (progenitor of the Lucys of Charlecote), Roger de St John and Richard Mallore. Cheers Rosie On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 10:40:30 AM UTC+12, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Evidence of the Segrave-Lucy-Cantelowe connection is provided by the fact that Sir John de Saint John (died 1302), of Basing, Hampshire, a known Cantelowe descendant, referred to Sir John de Segrave (died 1325), 2nd Lord Segrave, as his cousin {"notre cosin"] in a letter dated 1298 [Reference: Joseph Stevenson, Documents illustrative of the History of Scotland 2 (1870): 305-306]. A transcript of this letter may be viewed at the following weblink: > > http://books.google.com/books?id=O1oJAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:0HOj-SJq3-NMv7f6Jy#PPA305,M1 >

> Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This > Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? > > In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested "New Technology Makes Family History Easier, Even Fun", noting "An interesting development in family history research is the use of DNA testing to discover one’s ethnicity." > https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-technology-makes-family-history-easier-even-fun?lang=eng Some of the logical flaws I see in this post are: 1) FamilySearch promotes only genealogically-perfect products 2) An article in FamilySearch Wiki is tantamount to support from the LDS Church If FamilySearch promoted only genealogically-perfect products, we would have to take down FamilyTree, Indexing, the IGI, Wiki, etc. There are flaws in all these products. FamilySearch does not sell a DNA kit, but I for one, as an employee (and not speaking for the company), see great value in ethnicity tests attracting newbies to explore their roots and starting them on the path to becoming more serious genealogists. It's a gateway product, like false royal family trees, to entering the genealogy world. >Is this a serious public relations mistake, for an organization, noted for being the source of all truth, to promote hope in fictional data sets? Today, this is now updated in FamilySearch, the genealogy arm of the LDS Church, in subset "Hiring a DNA Testing Company", listed under Hiring a Professional Researcher. https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Hiring_a_DNA_Testing_Company Myself and Dr. Ugo Perego are some of the principal authors of this Wiki article. You'll note it is a Wiki and if you'd like to make edits to the factual accuracy of the article, you are welcome to do so. If you look closely at the bottom of this page, you'll notice a disclosure: "Neither The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor FamilySearch is associated in any way with any DNA studies. As a non-profit organization, FamilySearch cannot recommend a specific DNA-testing company to you." Most professional genealogists in my circles use DNA tests to confirm and find new relatives, rather than for ethnicity purposes. A good article to see this in practice is: *Mills, Elizabeth Shown. "Testing the FAN principle against DNA: Zilphy (Watts) Price Cooksey Cooksey of Georgia and Mississippi," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 102 (2014):129-52, available in full on the author's website: http://www.historicpathways.com/download/ZilphyArticle072915.pdf Best, Nathan P.S. And lastly, my satirical predictions of the future importance of DNA testing to genealogy: https://web.archive.org/web/20140306221040/https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-history-2050-dnas-impact/

On Sunday, May 29, 2016 at 9:58:26 PM UTC-6, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This > Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? > > In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested "New Technology Makes Family History Easier, Even Fun", noting "An interesting development in family history research is the use of DNA testing to discover one’s ethnicity." > https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-technology-makes-family-history-easier-even-fun?lang=eng Some of the logical flaws I see in this post are: 1) FamilySearch promotes only genealogically-perfect products 2) An article in FamilySearch Wiki is tantamount to support from the LDS Church If FamilySearch promoted only genealogically-perfect products, we would have to take down FamilyTree, Indexing, the IGI, Wiki, etc. There are flaws in all these products. FamilySearch does not sell a DNA kit, but I for one, as an employee (and not speaking for the company), see great value in ethnicity tests attracting newbies to explore their roots and starting them on the path to becoming more serious genealogists. It's a gateway product, like false royal family trees, to entering the genealogy world. >Is this a serious public relations mistake, for an organization, noted for being the source of all truth, to promote hope in fictional data sets? Today, this is now updated in FamilySearch, the genealogy arm of the LDS Church, in subset "Hiring a DNA Testing Company", listed under Hiring a Professional Researcher. https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Hiring_a_DNA_Testing_Company Myself and Dr. Ugo Perego are some of the principal authors of this Wiki article. You'll note it is a Wiki and if you'd like to make edits to the factual accuracy of the article, you are welcome to do so. If you look closely at the bottom of this page, you'll notice a disclosure: "Neither The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints nor FamilySearch is associated in any way with any DNA studies. As a non-profit organization, FamilySearch cannot recommend a specific DNA-testing company to you." Most professional genealogists in my circles use DNA tests to confirm and find new relatives. A good article to see this in practice is: *Mills, Elizabeth Shown. "Testing the FAN principle against DNA: Zilphy (Watts) Price Cooksey Cooksey of Georgia and Mississippi," National Genealogical Society Quarterly 102 (2014):129-52, available in full on the author's website: http://www.historicpathways.com/download/ZilphyArticle072915.pdf Best, Nathan P.S. And lastly, my satirical predictions of the future importance of DNA testing to genealogy: https://web.archive.org/web/20140306221040/https://familysearch.org/blog/en/family-history-205impact/

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 3:57:34 PM UTC-4, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > "There was something similar but larger that was created by the now defunct > Medieval Genealogy unit at the Family History Library." > > Stewart Baldwin > ---------------------------------- > > Please explain why it became defunct -- i.e., who made the decision to shut > it down -- and what was the rationale? > > DSH > > Fortem Posce Animum Mortis Terrore Carentem > > Decimus Junius Juvenalis [Juvenal] (ca. 60 A.D. Aquino, Italy - ca. 127 > A.D.] Satire X A former version of yourself: D. Spencer Hines in 2005 said in response to news that the Unit was possibly retuning: "That is GREAT NEWS. I was told the previous Medieval Families Unit was shut down by the LDS because it was considered "too elitist" [thereby arousing dysfunctional jealousies in some poor addle-pated folks] -- among other reasons -- including "finances" and "allocation of resources" -- two reasons often used as cover-up excuses. So this is welcome news indeed. Thanks for posting this, Douglas. D. Spencer Hines Lux et Veritas et Libertas Vires et Honor"

I work at FamilySearch. I can confirm the Medieval Unit has been phased out. I don't know the reason. You never know, it might be reincarnated again in the future. The databases they created are now under the "Genealogy" section in the "Search" tab on familysearch.org. The user experience with the databases is sub par. Nathan On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 1:57:34 PM UTC-6, D. Spencer Hines wrote: > "There was something similar but larger that was created by the now defunct > Medieval Genealogy unit at the Family History Library." > > Stewart Baldwin > ---------------------------------- > > Please explain why it became defunct -- i.e., who made the decision to shut > it down -- and what was the rationale? > > DSH > > Fortem Posce Animum Mortis Terrore Carentem > > Decimus Junius Juvenalis [Juvenal] (ca. 60 A.D. Aquino, Italy - ca. 127 > A.D.] Satire X

On 5/29/2016 9:49 PM, genealogyofthewesternworld via wrote: > I spent some months on WikiTree and finally gave up on it. It's simply a mess. To achieve true quality control would probably require purging the entire database and starting over with tighter controls. I, for one, would hate to see THP caught up in that bedlam. Just my humble opinion. I share your opinion about WikiTree, Geni, and the like, and don't worry, I have no intention of making the Henry Project part of such a mess. [begin rant] There is now so much "raw data" out there in the form of newly available records and DNA tests that tremendous strides could be made if we only had the critical mass of well-educated genealogical scholars available to properly interpret it. Thus, it is unfortunate to see so many novices out there who spend most of their time copying other people's bad research, many of whom haven't even educated themselves to the point that they can distinguish good research from bad research when the two are set side-by-side. The really sad thing is that a significant number of these novices have enough talent that they could become excellent (or at least competent) genealogists if they just took the time to learn the basics of genealogical research and learned the ropes by concentrating on researching and carefully documenting a limited group of individuals instead of trying to discover their entire genealogy all at once. Some will say that even bad genealogy can provide useful clues for further research, and that is occasionally true, but in most cases it just gets in the way. I can't count the number of times I have done a Google search hoping to find something useful and instead got hundreds of hits copying the same falsehoods. If the useful site appears on page 8 in thousands of matches, I might give up before I reach it. This "too many worthless hits" problem is further exacerbated by all of the individuals who have the "my database is bigger than your database" addiction and import and combine databases containing obviously false "information" (such as a man marrying before he was born) which they apparently have never even read. I have often seen such information copied into hundreds of different databases. [Here, when I state that they have not even read the information, I am giving these individuals the benefit of the doubt by assuming that they are aware that a man cannot marry before he is born. I hope I am not wrong about this. :-) ] Some of these errors appear to be created by carelessly using automatic merge features, so some of the junk that appears has never even been processed by a human brain. [end rant] As for the proposed project that started this discussion, it sounds like what is being discussed is some sort of finding aid. The first thing that came to mind when I saw the original posting was Marshall's "The Genealogist's Guide" and the two later supplements of the same name. There was something similar but larger that was created by the now defunct Medieval Genealogy unit at the Family History Library. One problem I have had with these sources is that there is often no indication of whether or not the reference refers to the family of interest to me, so I often spent too much time chasing down references to different families having the same surname (especially with common surnames). Thus, if it is a finding aid that is being proposed here, I suggest that a primary focus might be to give the user enough information (time period, location, etc.) to decide if the reference is worth chasing down. As has already been discussed at length, careful thought needs to be given to quality control from the very beginning. Stewart Baldwin

On 30/05/2016 10:45 AM, abmdsb via wrote: > You can go to the Foundations website and purchase that issue I believe, or subscribe and read it online. Thanks, but I'm not rich enough or interested enough to pay for reading it. > I did some research on the subject for Andrew a couple of years ago. And did you form a view about the remarks made by Adolf Hofmeister on this subject? Peter Stewart

On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 11:26:49 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Monday, May 30, 2016 at 10:45:32 AM UTC-4, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > What is genetic ancestry testing? This U.S. Library of Medicine article does not cherry-pick or provide quotes out of context and misapply them. > > https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/testing/ancestrytesting > > ULM? No. The original poster left out a word - U.S. National Library of Medicine, the NLM of the URL, an NIH-funded initiative to make medical information available to the research community and general public (it is not a library in the traditional sense). taf